A senator who is clearly identified with opposition to free-trade deals triumphs in a state that has been particularly hard hit by those pacts.

March 9, 2016

Ready to fight back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

The political and media elites that see most of America as “flyover” country have never quite understood that trade policy matters. But in cities like Flint and Pontiac and Grand Rapids and Detroit, cities that have been ravaged by the offshoring of jobs and the closing of auto plants, it does matter.

That is why Bernie Sanders and his campaign strategists always believed they would run better in Michigan than the polls and pundits suggested.

It turns out that Sanders was right. On Tuesday, to the surprise of almost everyone, the candidate that so many commentators had been trying to write off just hours earlier won the biggest victory so far in his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“Michigan is the gateway to the rest of the industrial Midwest.”
—Bernie Sanders

Sanders beat Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the nomination, by a narrow margin—around 20,000 votes out of almost 1.2 million cast. But in a contest where Clinton has hailed narrow wins in Iowa and Massachusetts as big victories for her, the Michigan win counts as a big victory for Sanders. And it was made all the more consequential because poll after poll after poll had suggested Sanders was far behind the former secretary of state.

“I am grateful to the people of Michigan for defying the pundits and pollsters and giving us their support. This is a critically important night. We came from 30 points down in Michigan and we’re seeing the same kind of come-from-behind momentum all across America,” said Sanders. “Not only is Michigan the gateway to the rest of the industrial Midwest, the results there show that we are a national campaign. We already have won in the Midwest, New England, and the Great Plains and as more people get to know more about who we are and what our views are we’re going to do very well.”

Sanders still faces an uphill climb. Clinton has won more of the pledged delegates that are needed to secure the nomination. She just added to her total with a big win in Mississippi on Tuesday. And she has a huge advantage among the unpledged “superdelegates” who have always provided her with a cushion in this contest.

But it would be difficult to underestimate the significance of the Michigan win for Sanders.

How did he secure it?

Clearly, Clinton’s attempt to suggest that Sanders had not supported the 2009 bailout of the auto industry failed. Voters just did not buy the claim that the senator, who has a long history of battling on behalf of industrial workers and American manufacturing, had been on the wrong side of that issue.

2

3

4

5

But there was more to it than that. In the same Sunday night debate where Clinton was talking about the auto bailout, Sanders was speaking specifically, and aggressively, about his opposition to trade policies that working people in Michigan associate with economic damage, dislocation, and decline.

Throughout his campaign, Sanders has highlighted his past opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement and normalization of trade relations with China—and his absolute, unequivocal opposition to the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

In Sunday night’s debate in Flint, Sanders said Clinton “has discovered religion on this issue, but it’s a little, too late,” and he argued that “Secretary Clinton supported virtually every one of these disastrous trade agreements written by corporate America.”

That was a winning line for Sanders in Michigan.

Sanders makes his opposition to the deal central to his message about what he refers to as “a rigged economy.”

“Let’s be clear: The TPP is much more than a ‘free trade’ agreement,” argues Sanders. “It is part of a global race to the bottom to boost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street by outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety, and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challenge our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system.”

Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said “this issue of trade policy” was the key to the Sanders win in Michigan, noting that Sanders had steadily opposed the agreements, while Clinton had often backed them. Weaver argued that the issue “resonated across racial lines,” pointing to exit polls that had Sanders winning more than 30 percent of the African-American vote in Michigan, far more than he received in Southern states that voted in late February and early March.

Voter attitudes about trade policy are rooted not in theory but in experience.

LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

The free-trade model that has been promoted for decades by Democratic and Republican presidents, along with Wall Street interests and multinational corporations, have failed American workers and communities in states like Michigan. They have also failed workers and communities in Ohio and Missouri and Illinois—states that will vote on March 15—and in later-on-the-calendar states such as Wisconsin and Indiana and Pennsylvania.

For voters in the industrial heartlands of the United States, trade is a fundamental issue. It influences how working men and women vote. And, in Michigan, on Tuesday, it was with that issue in mind that they cast their ballots for Bernie Sanders.

“The Beltway elite may never have really understood why job-killing trade deals are such a big deal,” said Dan Cantor, the national director of the Working Families Party, who has endorsed Sanders. “But the people of Michigan surely do, and Bernie Sanders does too.”

The Nation should look at this article by Thomas Frank in the Guardian about Trump voters and this other article from The American Conservative on Trump. Trump has made trade his #1 issue and opened up the Republican flank. Politics makes strange bedfellows! - Bernie and Trump are ripping the trade issue wide open in a way that is only possible when the base of both parties is engaged.

Trade agreements, good or bad, did not cause offshoring or outsourcing. Those things would have happened regardless in a world economy. In fact, most agreements attempt to mitigate the damage done by the race to the bottom.

We Americans demand high paying jobs that stay home but we also demand goods at rock-bottom prices. The two cannot coexist when you have countries paying $50 a week with no worker or environmental standards and no benefits.

Our dissatisfaction is misplaced, unfortunately.

(2)(10)

Robert Coxsays:

March 9, 2016 at 2:31 pm

It's astonishing how well Bernie is doing given the uneven playing field--the margin of difference in support of Hilary from the establishment press, for example, has been huge. I just wish more was being made about the democratizing role money should play in a democracy. I suppose economic democracy and socialism amount to pretty much the same thing. The alternative is oligarchy or capitalist-fascism. The antithesis of democracy... I think this is a core principle for American progressives.

It seems to me the Declaration of Independence is good place for Bernie to root his democratic-socialist philosophy; it amounts to a progressive manifesto and sets out the guiding principle for a long-term political revolution.

To put the matter in its most brutish terms Jefferson near the end of his life put it this way: "...the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride then legitimately, by the grace of God."

(16)(0)

Michael Curriersays:

March 9, 2016 at 1:01 pm

Michigan is no bell weather primary state: look at the last 35 years of who won the primary and if that person won the nomination or election.
Plus, it is not which states get won but who adds delegates. Saturday night, Sanders won 3 and lost one and Hillary went forward on delegates. Last night, each candidate won a state and Hillary went ahead on delegates again.
Bernie is still failing.
In 2008 my hopes as a Hillary supporter would rise whenever she won a state but the math was brutal for her: and so it is this year for Bernie.
It isn't the main stream media or the establishment or the monied interests: it is just the math. The facts are against Bernie now.

(4)(11)

Leila Walshsays:

March 9, 2016 at 12:53 pm

I accept that Bernie won, being one of the few HRC supporters here. But I am curious what effect Flint, of all places, running out ballots on primary night. had on the outcome Or all the democrats who felt emboldened to vote republican to mess up their opponents' election when they might have wrecked their own.

(1)(4)

Eddie F says:

March 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm

You have a valid point. It's been said that many (?) Dems voted Republican for the non-Trump. But as Leila says, they may have hurt their own candidate--if it was Hillary

(1)(0)

James Duselsays:

March 9, 2016 at 12:46 pm

What, oh what, will Paul Krugman do when he realizes that the workers of this nation understood Clinton better than he did?

(16)(3)

Basia Millersays:

March 9, 2016 at 12:42 pm

But it would be difficult to underestimate the significance of the Michigan win for Sanders.

I think you meant "overestimate" or overstate the significance of the Michigan win. I agree.

(9)(1)

Will Kittssays:

March 9, 2016 at 11:33 am

I truly hope that the growing awareness of Hillay's duplicity on trade, as evidenced by Bernie's win in Michigan, is replicated in the upcoming primaries in other industrial states.
If Clinton has gotten religion on this issue, it most certainly is only a temporary and superficial conversion.
Voters must look at her history; that will tell them everything about who she is, and where her bread is buttered.

(45)(2)

Eddie F says:

March 9, 2016 at 4:37 pm

If voters look at her history as you suggest, they might realize that she's been demonized so much that her true policies are incomprehensible.

(3)(1)

Mark Merizansays:

March 9, 2016 at 6:54 pm

If her true policies are incomprehensible it is because they are totally at odds with what she is SAYING right now.

(3)(0)

Jay Saulsays:

March 9, 2016 at 10:59 am

Any manufacturing job that can be done by a machine will be. Those assembly line jobs are not going to exist much longer for anyone anywhere. The future of manufacturing will be local and totally computerized. Warehouses will not just be where products are stored for distribution, they will manufacture products close to where they are sold and only in the amounts required. Education is the answer to our jobs problems, and to do that we have to stop spending on jets and bombs. We have shackled ourselves with the weight of our military, our best engineers and our best tech minds are swept up by the high paying jobs in defense and are not available to our manufacturers. The problem is jobs, but the answer is not bringing back old jobs, it is training minds for to operate the machines. Or we can just raise the minimum wage high enough so the uneducated can eat while the ship sinks. (Not against raising the minimum wage, but it will not solve the jobs problem, $15/hr does not make for any security, it's just a bandaid.)

(27)(5)

Mark Merizansays:

March 9, 2016 at 6:56 pm

What we are seeing is a phase in development where the cost of producing goods drops to very close to zero. Our current economic system makes almost NO provision for such a situation.

(0)(0)

Roger Weisesays:

March 9, 2016 at 4:28 pm

I agree that more and more manufacturing tasks are being automated. However, I see no trend for the automation to be dispersed. The equipment for automated manufacturing is very expensive and only a few machines of any particular type are needed. Right now, those expensive machines are being installed in far east countries such as China and therefore the expertise to use and maintain them will only exist in those countries. Automated machines to produce automobiles, appliances, integrated circuits or anything else will never exist on every street corner nor even in every state.
In addition, the baseline education for entry into automation jobs is not being supported in the US, a young person has to commit to a lifetime of debt to obtain a post secondary education. There is no mystery why those young people are not choosing a technical education path and moving to China where the jobs are. Some of the best and brightest talent migrates to Wall Street financial jobs where for example highly talented mathematicians develop ways to eke out more and more money from high speed computer "trading".

(1)(0)

Tom Streetsays:

March 9, 2016 at 3:57 pm

Agree that automation is a major factor in eliminating jobs. This, in addition to outsourcing, has led to the decline of decent paying middle class jobs for the American worker. This is not going to change. While the manufacturers may be saving money, the machines will not be consumers. As the consumers disappear, this will come back to bite those who think they were staying ahead of the game through automation and outsourcing. I don't think either candidate is looking at this issue clearly as I think that the response should be to guarantee a basic annual income as well as a high minimum wage. Failure to redistribute income downward while continuing with the current trend will result in impoverishment for greater and greater numbers of people.

(3)(0)

Eddie F says:

March 9, 2016 at 4:40 pm

You're absolutely right. After the corporations succeed in getting rid of all their workers through automation, who will buy their products.

(1)(0)

Jordan Popesays:

March 9, 2016 at 2:07 pm

Agreed. Those are all brutal truths. Raising the minimum wage is only a short-term solution and it doesn't look beyond the horizon.

(2)(3)

Leila Walshsays:

March 9, 2016 at 5:01 pm

I see another problem with the raised minimum wage. Workers above minimum will demand a raise because their work may require more training than a fast food worker. Consequently, the $15 per hr loses its bounce. I don't think anyone should work full time and live in poverty. But it seems, increasing the minimum wage to $15 has to be backed up with other policies to ensure that workers' lives are improved for the long run.

(0)(0)

Amal Guptasays:

March 9, 2016 at 2:58 pm

I agree " but the answer is not bringing back old jobs". The answer is retraining the work-force to do the work of the future . This includes designing future machines that will do the job, and operating, maintaining, servicing those machines. All these will demand high-tech education - both theory and practical training. We are already in an era of life-long learning!!!!

(5)(1)

Eddie F says:

March 9, 2016 at 4:45 pm

Yes, but operating, maintaining and servicing the machines will not provide enough jobs, and not everyone has the aptitude for high-tech education. One of the answers has to be to cut the work week in half, while maintaining a living wage
Back in the early 70s and beyond, there were many articles written about the glorious future, where we would all have lots of leisure time because of automation. They really thought the corporations would allow that !!!

(3)(0)

Deborah K Yaffesays:

March 9, 2016 at 9:44 am

Another big issue that comes along with the trade deals is outsourcing, not only because it moves jobs overseas, the crucial factor, but since it started we have seen a monumental (trying not to see huge) decline in products that are offered for sale. To take one example, women's clothing used to be made of high quality material and design, real sewing with darts, underlining, and such. Now we're getting thin material with no shaping, in some cases just two pieces of material sewn together at the seams. This can be applied to many things, shoes, even costume jewelry. In other words our quality of life has declined. And even though it's said we have low inflation, that doesn't take into account the replacement value. It used to be that, again taking clothes as an example, they would last for years. Now these poorly made items need to be replaced more quickly when a seam rips or has some other problem, shrinks in the wash or whatever, so actually we're spending more because we have to replace them more often than before. Or to take another example, order a piece of furniture online or in a store, many times there's a problem with it. Read some of the comments from people who've bought things online, numerous complaints about quality, and this side of the problem needs to be addressed.

(37)(0)

Diana Mcginnesssays:

March 9, 2016 at 8:57 am

The political establishment in both parties promote how great free trade is for consumer. The only problem with that is, if you don't have a job or a job that pays more than $7.25 a hour, it doesn't matter how little something costs, you can't afford it.

Germany outsources SOME jobs, but they protect their workers by putting labor on the board of directors and they support their small businesses who are patriots understanding that keeping the jobs in Germany is good for Germany.

The US cares about profits, profits, profits right up to selling water. What's next? ...the air we breathe?

They gave us NAFTA with alleged "protections" then they defunded the departments within those agencies who were supposed to provide the over-site. While journalists moved on their merry way to the next story.

And we know TPP is much worse.

If we don't end our love affair with the capitalists, we are soon (if not already) going to become fascists.

(51)(0)

Eddie F says:

March 9, 2016 at 4:52 pm

As Ronna says, it's an excellent comment, but getting rid of TPP will not create jobs here--there will still be low wage countries where corporations will flock. We actually need some trade bill--if the TPP is not the answer, then we need something that will protect American workers. Some politicians claim that TPP does that. I don't know enough of the details to render an opinion.

(0)(0)

Roger Weisesays:

March 9, 2016 at 7:11 pm

How could a trade agreement arrived at with no worker representation ever protect workers? NAFTA and TPP are agreements among large international corporations and corporate purchased government officials. The result is of course to increase the total wealth of those corporations at the expense of the vast majority who have to work at ever decreasing wages.

(1)(0)

Mark Merizansays:

March 9, 2016 at 6:59 pm

If we need a trade agreement that protects American workers ... AND consumers, then the TPP is definitely NOT it.